Is Polygamy Wrong?

[Galloism]

They'll either act or or commit suicide en masse.

A disproportionate ratio of men to women in China has made it difficult for millions of men there to find partners, but there has been no epidemic of violence or rape or suicide. It's almost as if most men have self-control and an ability to cope with not getting everything they want.

It's worth note "bride kidnapping" is becoming so common in China it actually has its own section in wikipedia and articles have surfaced detailing how kidnappings even occur in other countries and the women are trafficked to China:

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/society/ ... ides-china

https://www.vice.com/en_asia/article/ne ... ian-brides

China's one child policy (and the resulting disproportionate ratio) has caused a regional disaster.

[Thuzbekistan]

A disproportionate ratio of men to women in China has made it difficult for millions of men there to find partners, but there has been no epidemic of violence or rape or suicide. It's almost as if most men have self-control and an ability to cope with not getting everything they want.

People in China are just now getting to the demographic imbalance, it won't happen right away. That said, China has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

People can cope for a while, but social isolation and stigma is extremely crippling emotionally.

[United Muscovite Nations]

People in China are just now getting to the demographic imbalance, it won't happen right away. That said, China has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

People can cope for a while, but social isolation and stigma is extremely crippling emotionally.

Yeah, social isolation and social stigma have no impact on quality of life, all those studies that say so are just wrong.

What an absolutely stupid thing to roll your eyes at.

[Galloism]

Yeah, social isolation and social stigma have no impact on quality of life, all those studies that say so are just wrong.

What an absolutely stupid thing to roll your eyes at.

And worth note, China's gender disparity is already causing a regional disaster.

[Page]

Yeah, social isolation and social stigma have no impact on quality of life, all those studies that say so are just wrong.

What an absolutely stupid thing to roll your eyes at.

And worth note, China's gender disparity is already causing a regional disaster.

No one is arguing that there aren't problems. The fact remains that most men exercise self-control and act like decent human beings - stop making excuses for the ones who don't.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And worth note, China's gender disparity is already causing a regional disaster.

No one is arguing that there aren't problems. The fact remains that most men exercise self-control and act like decent human beings - stop making excuses for the ones who don't.

Because, in most situations, it's in their best interests to act like decent human beings.

[Galloism]

And worth note, China's gender disparity is already causing a regional disaster.

No one is arguing that there aren't problems. The fact remains that most men exercise self-control and act like decent human beings - stop making excuses for the ones who don't.

I'm arguing that if you take away the most important thing in the world to people because they're in the wrong social class, they aren't going to take it lying down - weather it's food, water, medicine, or their future.

You're trying to argue about individual action when we're talking about a social problem.

To illustrate:

When we had race riots in the 1960s in the United States, we arrested the individual lawbreakers as much as humanly possible. This is because we recognize individual responsibility for their violent acts.

But we also recognized the social problems that led to those riots, and did something about them. We didn't just throw up our hands and say "welp, most of those black people exercise self control and act like decent human beings - stop making excuses for the ones who don't" and steadfastly refuse to change or recognize the underlying problems that led to those events. This is because we recognize social problems can lead to violent reactions.

This is not inconsistent.

[Equalitaria and Cascadia]

I personally don’t think so, here’s why (not including polygamy is legal in my country):
Even though I think it isn’t wrong in itself, it shouldn’t be legalized for actual marriage and other related rights, as it causes too many problems among the partners as for individual and marital rights.

[Thuzbekistan]

Yeah, social isolation and social stigma have no impact on quality of life, all those studies that say so are just wrong.

What an absolutely stupid thing to roll your eyes at.

No, that's indisputable. What I'm rolling my eyes at is your insistence that A) available women will decrease in number and B) that a decrease in available women will result in social isolation, which is not the case

[Thuzbekistan]

No one is arguing that there aren't problems. The fact remains that most men exercise self-control and act like decent human beings - stop making excuses for the ones who don't.

I'm arguing that if you take away the most important thing in the world to people because they're in the wrong social class, they aren't going to take it lying down - weather it's food, water, medicine, or their future.

You're trying to argue about individual action when we're talking about a social problem.

To illustrate:

When we had race riots in the 1960s in the United States, we arrested the individual lawbreakers as much as humanly possible. This is because we recognize individual responsibility for their violent acts.

But we also recognized the social problems that led to those riots, and did something about them. We didn't just throw up our hands and say "welp, most of those black people exercise self control and act like decent human beings - stop making excuses for the ones who don't" and steadfastly refuse to change or recognize the underlying problems that led to those events. This is because we recognize social problems can lead to violent reactions.

This is not inconsistent.

You're not making men infertile. You're simply allowing people to get married. available women don't decrease just because polygamy is legal. You're all automatically assuming that women will outnumber men in these marraiges so much so that it will decrease available women. That's dumb. If that was the case, gay marriage shouldn't be legal either.

[Galloism]

Yeah, social isolation and social stigma have no impact on quality of life, all those studies that say so are just wrong.

What an absolutely stupid thing to roll your eyes at.

No, that's indisputable. What I'm rolling my eyes at is your insistence that A) available women will decrease in number and B) that a decrease in available women will result in social isolation, which is not the case

Well, provided culturally monogamy is still the norm, and polygamy the "oddity", it probably will have no noticeable effect. About the same number of men and women make it to adulthood after all, and Joe the CEO taking a 2nd wife probably isn't going to affect the pool overmuch, anymore than Joe getting hit by a bus affects the pool anyway.

It would only become a problem if it became normal. IE, the "average" married man has 3 wives. Then you wind up 75% of men effectively disenfranchised from the future, and that's probably going to lead to social problems of many kinds, unless we solve the artificial womb problem (whereupon, we have lots of other questions to answer, but that one has effectively been removed as a problem).

[Page]

Yeah, social isolation and social stigma have no impact on quality of life, all those studies that say so are just wrong.

What an absolutely stupid thing to roll your eyes at.

No, that's indisputable. What I'm rolling my eyes at is your insistence that A) available women will decrease in number and B) that a decrease in available women will result in social isolation, which is not the case

I'd also wager that when it comes to the types of guys who post on incel and redpill message boards, if 10 billion more women instantly manifested all over the Earth, their prospects would not improve one bit.

[Galloism]

I'm arguing that if you take away the most important thing in the world to people because they're in the wrong social class, they aren't going to take it lying down - weather it's food, water, medicine, or their future.

You're trying to argue about individual action when we're talking about a social problem.

To illustrate:

When we had race riots in the 1960s in the United States, we arrested the individual lawbreakers as much as humanly possible. This is because we recognize individual responsibility for their violent acts.

But we also recognized the social problems that led to those riots, and did something about them. We didn't just throw up our hands and say "welp, most of those black people exercise self control and act like decent human beings - stop making excuses for the ones who don't" and steadfastly refuse to change or recognize the underlying problems that led to those events. This is because we recognize social problems can lead to violent reactions.

This is not inconsistent.

You're not making men infertile. You're simply allowing people to get married. available women don't decrease just because polygamy is legal. You're all automatically assuming that women will outnumber men in these marraiges so much so that it will decrease available women. That's dumb. If that was the case, gay marriage shouldn't be legal either.

Again, provided it remains an edge case and not the norm, you're right.

If it becomes the norm (and, given the dating preferences between men and women, if polygamy was the norm, polygyny would probably be the most common kind - dating sites show that to the average woman, 80% of men are below average material, while men have a more evenly spread distribution) then we will have social problems.

A few hundred thousand polygamous marriages in the country is probably not a problem. Statistical noise. A few tens of millions and we'll probably have major social problems.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yeah, social isolation and social stigma have no impact on quality of life, all those studies that say so are just wrong.

What an absolutely stupid thing to roll your eyes at.

No, that's indisputable. What I'm rolling my eyes at is your insistence that A) available women will decrease in number and B) that a decrease in available women will result in social isolation, which is not the case

Available women would decrease in number because it's in a man's best interests to have multiple wives (and not against a woman's best interests to have this arrangement), but it is against a man's interests to have one wife with multiple husbands.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You're not making men infertile. You're simply allowing people to get married. available women don't decrease just because polygamy is legal. You're all automatically assuming that women will outnumber men in these marraiges so much so that it will decrease available women. That's dumb. If that was the case, gay marriage shouldn't be legal either.

Again, provided it remains an edge case and not the norm, you're right.

If it becomes the norm (and, given the dating preferences between men and women, if polygamy was the norm, polygyny would probably be the most common kind - dating sites show that to the average woman, 80% of men are below average material, while men have a more evenly spread distribution) then we will have social problems.

A few hundred thousand polygamous marriages in the country is probably not a problem. Statistical noise. A few tens of millions and we'll probably have major social problems.

^

[Galloism]

Again, provided it remains an edge case and not the norm, you're right.

If it becomes the norm (and, given the dating preferences between men and women, if polygamy was the norm, polygyny would probably be the most common kind - dating sites show that to the average woman, 80% of men are below average material, while men have a more evenly spread distribution) then we will have social problems.

A few hundred thousand polygamous marriages in the country is probably not a problem. Statistical noise. A few tens of millions and we'll probably have major social problems.

^

The answer is of course artificial wombs, then we have effectively killed the social effects, as no one is dependent upon anyone else in order to have a future. They just need money.

[Thuzbekistan]

You're not making men infertile. You're simply allowing people to get married. available women don't decrease just because polygamy is legal. You're all automatically assuming that women will outnumber men in these marraiges so much so that it will decrease available women. That's dumb. If that was the case, gay marriage shouldn't be legal either.

Again, provided it remains an edge case and not the norm, you're right.

If it becomes the norm (and, given the dating preferences between men and women, if polygamy was the norm, polygyny would probably be the most common kind - dating sites show that to the average woman, 80% of men are below average material, while men have a more evenly spread distribution) then we will have social problems.

A few hundred thousand polygamous marriages in the country is probably not a problem. Statistical noise. A few tens of millions and we'll probably have major social problems.

If polygamy was the norm, you would have to have it be economically advantageous. If that was the case, you would probably see more couples getting married with other couples than not. Either way, it's a really bad assumption to make that women would outnumber men. Despite your polls showing women have a higher standard than men, you wont see that translate into a bunch of women marrying one attractive man as they would also have to be equally attracted to their spouses.

[Thuzbekistan]

^

The answer is of course artificial wombs, then we have effectively killed the social effects, as no one is dependent upon anyone else in order to have a future. They just need money.

Why cant all partners be equal contributors financially?

[Ifreann]

I don't like this equivalence being drawn between having children and having a future/stake in the future. Feels weird.

[Yusseria]

^

The answer is of course artificial wombs, then we have effectively killed the social effects, as no one is dependent upon anyone else in order to have a future. They just need money.

I mean, a lot of people don't seek out relationships to have babies. They do it for sex and companionship.

[Thuzbekistan]

No, that's indisputable. What I'm rolling my eyes at is your insistence that A) available women will decrease in number and B) that a decrease in available women will result in social isolation, which is not the case

Available women would decrease in number because it's in a man's best interests to have multiple wives (and not against a woman's best interests to have this arrangement), but it is against a man's interests to have one wife with multiple husbands.

Explain

[Yusseria]

I don't like this equivalence being drawn between having children and having a future/stake in the future. Feels weird.

Because you don't want children?

[Thuzbekistan]

I don't like this equivalence being drawn between having children and having a future/stake in the future. Feels weird.

Theres a lot of unspoken sexism/homophobia in these assumptions

[Galloism]

Again, provided it remains an edge case and not the norm, you're right.

If it becomes the norm (and, given the dating preferences between men and women, if polygamy was the norm, polygyny would probably be the most common kind - dating sites show that to the average woman, 80% of men are below average material, while men have a more evenly spread distribution) then we will have social problems.

A few hundred thousand polygamous marriages in the country is probably not a problem. Statistical noise. A few tens of millions and we'll probably have major social problems.

If polygamy was the norm, you would have to have it be economically advantageous.

Well, i mean, it generally is to the individual group. If everyone can stand each other, a big house with 15 people is a lot cheaper per person than a small house with two people, even if the square footage per person is the same.

We'd have to reimagine taxes to such an extent I won't even hazard a guess as to how that would work.

If that was the case, you would probably see more couples getting married with other couples than not.

Why?

Either way, it's a really bad assumption to make that women would outnumber men.

I don't assume women would outnumber men. I assume that the distribution would start more closely following economic curves - where the rich person has multiple spouses, and the poor person doesn't have any.

Despite your polls showing women have a higher standard than men, you wont see that translate into a bunch of women marrying one attractive man as they would also have to be equally attracted to their spouses.

Why?

Serious question.

[Galloism]

The answer is of course artificial wombs, then we have effectively killed the social effects, as no one is dependent upon anyone else in order to have a future. They just need money.

Why cant all partners be equal contributors financially?

I'm not sure what this post had to do with the one you responded to.